Lorentz Force or Simple Harmonic Motion

mateomy
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
So my friend and I were going through problems and this came up...

Consider 3 straight, infinitely long, equally spaced wires (with zero radius, separated each by a distance d), each carrying a current I in the same direction.


blah blah blah...


part c) asks us...

If the middle wire is rigidly displaced a very small distance x (x<<d) upward while the other 2 wires are held fixed, describe qualitatively the subsequent motion of the wire.


One of us is invoking the Lorentz force and saying as a the middle wire is displaced the Force between the middle wire and it's now closer neighbor will increase, thereby creating a very strong attractive force. However, the other of us is manipulating the equations to show that what will happen is in fact, simple harmonic motion. Lorentz force seems obvious but, how can we be pulling SHM out of this? Which makes the most sense?

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I assume that "displaced upward" means that the middle wire is displaced in a direction that is perpendicular to the plane that originally contained the three wires. If so, does the middle wire remain equidistant from the other two wires? Does the net force on the middle wire remain zero? If not, what is the direction of the net force?
 
No, the displacement is within the wire plane. It's displaced closer to another wire and then released.
 
Oh, I see. Well, after the displacement, what will be the direction of the net force on the middle wire?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top